Action/Movement . . . . . Principle/Party

[Stinky The Clown]

The talk of the DU divide. Which are you? Is there a chasm between?

I actually think not. Unless *you* create the chasm. Unless *you* openly and proudly choose to live on one side of the chasm in your mind or not.

There is a thread still active about Action vs Movement. I find the framing obnoxious and the screed from which the framing derives unhelpful. The pictures conjured up by those words are the problem. They are an absolutely perfect example of some of the total shit that Frank Luntz comes up with.

Action. Superman. Macho. Strong. Buff.

Movement. Egghead. Poindexter. Intellectual. Geek. Nerd.

The two terms we all know and can all understand clearly are those of "principle" and "party". Some of us are one and some of us are the other. Mostly. But not one of us is purely one or the other. In fact, I dare say most of us are probably 49/51 or 51/49. Maybe even closer. Maybe even a lot closer.

Here is what's ignored all too often: the default we take on our lesser of the two traits.

Let me explain. If I were to say I was a party voter, I open myself up to criticism, sometimes harsh, from those who are more issue oriented than I. Were I to identify as a principles voter, I am open to hits from the party people.

What gets ignored is how you default on your lesser trait.

By way of example, I am a principles voter. That leads me to my support of candidates. But here's the funny thing. In the absence of a viable non Democrat who supports my principles, I, *by default* vote for the Democrat.

The very opposite, the mirror image, is also true.

So next time you're intent on setting me or anyone else up as "different", give some thought to our secondary traits. And our defaults. There's not a lot of difference between us. Maybe one tenth of one percent. If that.

[mike_c]

1. proudly principled nerd here....

Ideals before party. Period. When dems (or any one else) stop representing my principles, they stop receiving my votes.

[madinmaryland]

2. Like you, I find myself as a combination of the two labels.

Or somewhere between.

[MineralMan]

3. Wasn't there a thread along these lines yesterday?

I'm pretty sure there was. Never mind.

[damntexdem]

5. If there wasn't, there should have been.

[damntexdem]

4. Always principles over party.

As a member of the peace movement, I have consistently stated that the movement must not make itself a captive of the Dem Party, must push its own principles regardless.

As a supporter of good science, I have noted that in places like Texas and Kansas, we are dependent upon pro-science Republicans to gain and maintain pro-science majorities on school boards -- although I have consistently refused to personally vote for ANY Republican in any race.

As a supporter of labor unions, I have always said that workers' rights trump party.

And so on.

That said, I have also noted that I vote not just for Obama, but did vote for Bill Clinton; and I never expected said presidents to be particularly liberal in their policies -- although I have never hesitated to criticize them when they were not. In this election, I have put all of my efforts into the Bill White campaign for governor of Texas because I see that campaign as the one where I am with the most likelihood of success; and I do this despite that fact that White is a rather conservative Democrat. Still, having lived in Texas for over six years under Perry, I would love to see White become governor.

In short, it's principles over party; but my principles tell me to support the Democratic Party where I can, at least for now.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Thank you.

I found that labeling obnoxious as well. Yes indeed, Luntz would have been very proud.

[sabrina 1]

7. Rec'd although it didn't register.

Principles before party. We've had decades of Party Before Principles, and look at what it got for us.

WE are supposed to push them to work for us. Instead we hear constantly that we must follow THEIR lead even when it's wrong.

We tried it, it failed. But then you allow your principles to be coopted, you always fail.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. It need not even be an either/or thing, if you think about it.

We really are talking about shades of gray differences.

[sabrina 1]

11. No, it shouldn't be. But what happens is when the politicians

fail to represent the people who elected them, coming up with all kinds of excuses (and in some cases insults) for why that is, the people naturally get a little upset. That's when a certain group of people seem to appear out of nowhere. They attempt to defend the failures of the party, mostly by denigrating those who hired the politicians in the first place on the understanding that they were going to work for the people.

This group appears across the internet, slamming those who want action, not excuses on major issues such as torture eg, the restoration of the rule of law, Gay rights, Offshore drilling, Education. We didn't support Democrats to get Republican policies, so we say so. This group cannot accept any criticism of the party. Rather than offer logical reasons, which sometimes there may be, they attack. They call names, they use the same words, such as 'whiners' and 'naive' 'victims' 'ponies' etc. We are famililar with them all by now. Iow, they do not seem to be speaking for themselves but speaking for the party.

I support the Democratic Party because its platform best represents what I believe in. That doesn't mean I am obliged to applaud everything they do, right or wrong. Eg, supporting war, refusing to prosecute war crimes etc. This other group believes that once you are a Democrat, you must defend their every action and if you don't you just stfu with your 'retarded ideas'.

When people are only voting for a party because the alternative is so completely insane, this is not good for this country.

I don't think there is a division. I do think there are people, either professionals (and I know they have been on other boards I have participated in) or so frightened that any criticism means people will not vote, they lose their ability to reason. That group imho, is very much a minority but a loud one. What they don't seem to realize is that they do more harm than good. Which often makes me wonder what the real motivation is.

As for Alter's labels, I just think they are silly. Alter was an Iraq War supporter. Based on the lies of Bush/Cheney, he listed all the lies once as his reason for that support. Anyone stupid enough to have fallen for those lies on the left, should probably spend more time explaining what he was thinking, than trying to analyze others.

I simply reject his silly labels, they were fun to talk about but completely childish and probably more likely to create divisions if anyone takes them seriously, than anything else.

[Catherina]

9. Proud to recommend this n/t

[leftstreet]

10. There really is no 'divide' on DU

In terms of majority opinion. Just check polls and recs

The membership R pretty left.

Just a handful of party over principle members, and... well bless their hearts....

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Ah yes that old Southern charm thing: Bless their hearts.

Indeed.

:thumbsup:

:)